The Gallup poll is noteworthy simply because it exists. The numbers in the poll are not entirely irrelevant but what matters is that the once crazy idea of a Democratic nomination fight is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom.
“While we don’t think Hillary Clinton will directly challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012, we do think it is the job of sensible Democrats and smart Hillary supporting websites to drive Obama from the 2012 race. It is also the job for American citizens who care about the country.”
Our job just became easier because now Gallup is fielding polls questioning the once unquestionable. This unexpected poll reflects to a large extent the vast majority of Democrats and Obama Dimocrats who refuse to believe there will be a Republican death dealing wave this November.
After November’s elections the numbers will shift. Democrats who vote the Democratic line automatically and Democrats who think all is well and that the problem is a bunch of unrepresentative “teabaggers” and hysterical Glenn Beck fans will have to face the destruction after the wave hits. The “unthinkable” will become the “must do”.
“If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to challenge President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, she would currently have the support of 37% of Democrats nationally, while 52% would support Obama.
NBC’s “Meet the Press” host David Gregory on Sept. 5 raised the possibility that Clinton might renew her battle against Obama for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, asking outside White House adviser David Plouffe, “Do you envision a primary challenge from another Democrat in 2012 against this president?” Gregory then asked more specifically, “Do you — can you rule out, based on actual information, that Secretary of State Clinton would not pursue the presidency again, would not challenge President Obama?” [snip]
Obama’s strengths among Democrats in the hypothetical matchup with Clinton lie with college graduates and liberals, the latter of whom make up about 36% of this sample of 859 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Clinton does better among less well-educated Democrats and bests Obama among conservatives, who make up 22% of Democrats. Clinton does slightly better among women than among men.”
That 37% of Democrats already are prepared to dump Barack Obama for a supposed “unthinkable” alternative is rather astounding. After the elections in November which will strip away the last illusions that Obama is popular and the future of the party lies with him, reality will have to be faced. If reality is ignored then there will be further election cycles larded with defeat after defeat. If Democrats refuse to face the need to appeal to Independents and to win back the former base, such as senior citizens, the defeats will be across the board and unrelenting in future election cycles.
“Even though most observers assume Obama will run for re-election, from time to time he has said he would be content to be a one-term president if he accomplished his goals. There is also the very real question of whether Clinton, or any other Democrat, will mount a challenge to Obama as 2012 approaches. That decision will in turn depend in part on Obama’s perceived strengths and job approval ratings next year. These data show that conservative Democrats are the least likely to support Obama when Clinton is his hypothetical opponent, suggesting that Obama may be most vulnerable to a possible challenge from that wing of his party.”
Conservative Democrats are the canary in the Independent vote mine. Hillary Clinton can appeal to the Independents that Obama has irretrievably lost. That the Left and African-American voters have a strong grip on the nomination process is without question. But as with what happened after the George McGovern loss in 1972, unless reality and sanity prevail post November, the defeats will keep on coming. Solution: Hillary. Tactic: drive Obama into Lyndon Johnson retirement and a life of golf and Rezko housing.
Politico headlined the Gallup poll with ominous words: “Poll: Support for Clinton in 2012”. Yesterday, DrudgeReport headlined: HILLARY HORROR: ‘DEMON’ PHOTO MOVED ON WIRE. The two headlines tell us that the “unthinkable” is now thinkable and that the opposition will be fierce.
Unlike naive Obama and his supporters who were “gobsmacked” when the celestial choirs did not sing and the Republicans did their job of opposition, Hillary supporters are not naive and we are well aware of the difficulties. Barack Obama, concerned about his personal “brand”, has driven the “D” brand into the ground and it is very possible that no one can resurrect the Democratic Party and bring victory in the next two election cycles to such an undeserving corrupt bunch, not even Hillary.
Whatever happens in the now thinkable, it is clear that for the good of the country Barack Obama and his minions and Big Blog Boys must be driven from a leading role in the life of the nation. Michael Wolffe asks “What Do We Do With Barack Obama?“:
“At this moment, we have a largely unrecognizable figure in the White House. The weirdly continuing questions about his birth place and religion may be not so much a slur as a demented metaphor for his real lack of identity—and friends.
There’s a guilty sense, too. People are edging away from him because they now feel they got it so wrong. It’s buyer’s remorse with recrimination—self-recrimination.
How did everybody get it so wrong is a question many people seem to be asking themselves—not least of all these people slinking out of the White House.
It is not just that he has turned out to be something different. In fact, reasonably, he isn’t that different. The more powerful sense of remorse or at least sheepishness may come from people now asking themselves how and why they came to think of him as different than he was. More confounding, they may not really now be able to remember just who exactly they thought he was.
So to refocus the story: Some mass misperception put Barack Obama in the White House and now nobody knows what to do with him.
Can there be a more awkward situation?”
“Some mass misperception put Barack Obama in the White House and now nobody knows what to do with him.” That “mass misperception” was Big Media lies and propaganda. That “mass misperception” was the “leadership” that forced Obama down the throat of the Democratic Party even as in election after election the will of rank and file Democrats expressed itself in 40 point margins of defeat against Obama.
What to do with Barack Obama?
Answer: Obama Stinks! B.O. Has Got To Go! Can there be a more obvious solution?
The Tea Party movement has, for the moment, organized and won a revolution against the Republican establishment. On the Democratic side there is still a civil war which started in 2008.
Yesterday Peter Daou published a widely red and discussed article about how “liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency” which ignores the real history and the reasons why Barack Obama is in trouble.
Most, if not all, Obama Dimocrats laughed at the Tea Party and preferred the disrespectful term “teabaggers” to mock the movement with that sexually tinged epithet. Nancy Pelosi called for investigations into the finances of these grass roots activists and the word “astroturf” was utilized with abandon to smear these citizens.
That the Republican establishment wants to put a saddle on the bucking bronco Tea Party movement there is no doubt. Therein lies a tale of the difference between astroturf and genuine grassroots:
“I just finished Kate Zernike’s sympathetic, and quite useful, book on the beginnings of the Tea Party movement, “Boiling Mad,” which consists largely of portraits of the people, mostly women, organizing on a ground level.
The book also rebuts the notion that the movement is an “astroturf” creation of the Koch brothers, in part by showing how many times Koch groups and others tried and failed, often laughably, to create such a movement.
You can’t, it seems, just can’t conjure these things out of the air.
FreedomWorks, had been “trying to grow a grassroots movement” since 1984, she writes:
It had not had much success. Every April 15, FreedomWorks would hold protests outside post offices across the country — “Hate your taxes? Join us!” — but they rarely attracted more than a handful of people.
It had even proposed the idea of a modern-day Boston Tea Party — more than once. “Do you think our taxes are too high and our tax code too complicated? We do!” the site proclaimed, as “The Star-Spangled Banner” piped in the background. It mocked Tom Daschle, then the Democratic Senate Mmajority leader, in a cartoon video game where a visitor to the site could click on boxes of tea to dump in the harbor while “Redcoat Daschle” stood on the wharf demanding, “Gimme all your money.”
In 2007, Dick Armey and Freedom Works’ Matt Kibbe “wrote an op-ed proposing the Boston Tea Party as a model of grassorots pressure on an overbearing central government.”
They couldn’t get it published anywhere.”
Today, in the New York Times, Stanley Fishman rewrites what we wrote a year and a half ago:
“Liberal pundits and the politicians whose agendas they favor continue to misunderstand the Tea Party movement and, what is worse, fail to realize how much the disdainful tone of their criticism fuels it. This may be changing now as the ominous signs proliferate… [snip]
The usual response to each tea part victory has been to say (1) it’s a one-off aberration (2) the primary turnout was low and unrepresentative and (3) he or she could never win in the general election. This has even been the position of the Republican party regulars who have often opposed the upstarts. [snip]
These developments have led Time magazine to conclude (in its Sept. 27 cover story) that we are seeing a “shaking up [of] the Republican party,” and columnist Mark Halperin follows suit in the same issue when he says that the Tea Party success “spells danger for [the Republican party’s] long term future.”
That all sounds familiar. It is the criticism we heard when we defended the Tea Party movement as legitimate and much more powerful and inclusive that the caricature from the unthinking Obama Left. Fishman then addresses the willful blindness of the “reality based, creative class”:
“But this, I think, is the wrong conclusion and shows how far progressives will go to avoid looking directly at a phenomenon they have trouble believing in. It would be more accurate to say that the Republican party now sees where its future lies, and it will cozy up to the new kids on the block (as it has already done in the case of O’Donnell) and ride their coattails to a victory even larger than the one they have been looking forward to.
And the Democrats will be helping them by saying scathing and dismissive things about the Tea Party and its candidates. [snip] The Tea Party’s strength comes from the down-to-earth rhetoric it responds to and proclaims, and whenever high-brow critics heap the dirt of scorn and derision upon the party, its powers increase.
Commentators who explain smugly that O’Donnell’s position on masturbation (that it is a selfish, solitary act) is contradicted by her Ayn Rand-like attack on collectivism, or who wax self-righteous about Paladino’s comparing Sheldon Silver to Hitler and promising to wield a baseball bat in Albany, or who laugh at Sharron Angle for being in favor of Scientology (she denies it) and against fluoridation and the Department of Education, are doing these candidates a huge favor. They are saying, in effect, these people are stupid, they’re jokes; and the implication (sometimes explicitly stated) is that anyone who takes them the least bit seriously doesn’t get the joke and is stupid, too.
We the people hear this and know who is being talked about, and react with anger: “Don’t presume to tell me what to think and whom to vote for just because you have more degrees than I do. I don’t know much about these people but if you guys are against them, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.”
And if they don’t exactly say that, the recently unveiled “Pledge to America” says it for them in its money quote: “An arrogant out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites make decisions, issue mandates, and enact laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.” The many grow and become more robust every time a self-satisfied voice from the political or media establishment dumps on their spokespersons. Mayor Bloomberg may be right when he says (in explaining his endorsement of Cuomo over Paladino) that “anger is not a governing strategy,” but it sure is a campaign strategy and it is one the Tea Party and the Republicans it has tutored know how to execute.”
Our long ago advice to respect and not mock was not listened to. We knew our advice would not be listened to by Obama supporters. Our advice was aimed at Hillary supporters and the network of Hillary supporter sites which were conflicted if not outwardly hostile to the Tea Party movement. Today, in retrospect, Fishman details the consequences and stupidity of the anti-Tea Party mockery:
“What to do? It is easier, of course, to say what not to do, and what not to do is what Democrats and their allies are prone to do — poke gleeful fun at the lesser mortals who say and believe strange things and betray an ignorance of history.
That won’t work. [snip] Don’t sling mud down in the dust where your opponents thrive. Instead, engage them as if you thought that the concerns they express (if not their forms of expression) are worthy of serious consideration, as indeed they are. [snip]
It’s at least worth a try, because the way things are going we may soon be looking at Senator O’Donnell, Governor Paladino and, down the road a bit, President Palin.”
The Democratic Civil War.
Peter Daou (he worked for Hillary in 2008) started to write an article about the “frightening case of Anwar al-Aulaqui” then veered off into how “liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency”. There are interesting points raised by Daou but he misses the source of Obama’s troubles. Here’s Daou:
“The body of the post remains the same, but I wanted to add further context in light of yet another slap at the left by the Obama team, in this case, VP Biden telling the base to “stop whining,” as well as breaking news that Rahm Emanuel is leaving the White House this week.
When Robert Gibbs attacked the professional left he didn’t specify anyone by name, but the assumption was that it was cable personalities, disaffected interest groups, bloggers and online commenters.
With each passing day, I’m beginning to realize that the crux of the problem for Obama is a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, among them Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.
Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren’t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.
The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority – the mosque speech comes to mind – these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans.
Some will dismiss them as minor players in the wider national discourse, but two things make them a thorn in the administration’s side:
a) they have a disproportionately large influence on the political debate, with numerous readers and followers — among them major media figures
b) they develop the frames and narratives that other progressive Obama critics adopt and disseminate
I’ve argued for some time that the story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him. And it eats him up. You know it from Robert Gibbs, you know it from Rahm Emanuel, you know it from Joe Biden and you know it from Obama himself.”
This is sheer nonsense from Daou. “Principles above Party” from that crew of cheerleaders for Obama’s election? That’s a laughable argument. The “same complaints” as against Bush? Rubbish. If George W. Bush had done what Obama had done these bloggers would have called for impeachment, trial, and imprisonment of B.O. (contrast their reactions with our own “Impeach, Remove, Imprison Barack Obama?“) long ago. Daou’s main point is actually evidence in favor of our argument and contrary to what Daou writes:
The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets. The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there. Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president’s powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.
Aulaqi is an odious and dangerous character and should be brought to justice for any crimes he committed. Still, the alarm on the left over this astonishing presidential overreach is entirely justifiable.”
The whining from these willfully gullible, now feeling betrayed bloggers, is irrelevant – what do they propose to do is the only point of interest. Greenwald whines that this is “an all-new low”, Digby whines that this is the “most shocking assertion of unfettered presidential power… I don’t think anyone expected the Democratic constitutional scholar would actually double down on the dictatorial powers. I confess, I’m fairly gobsmacked.”
Well, we’re not “gobsmacked” at all. We knew this would happen and that’s why we have always advocated against Barack Obama and started our series of “Obama is the Third Bush Term” (don’t miss the pictures in the lower right hand column of this website).
Where Daou makes a worthwhile contribution is with this:
“Political observers are mystified over the demise of hope, with everything from the economy to health care posited as the reason, but as I’ve argued time and again, it’s the moral authority, stupid:
Pundits put forth myriad reasons to explain the GOP wave (jobs and the economy topping the list), but they invariably overlook the biggest one: that Obama and Democrats have undermined their own moral authority by continuing some of Bush’s’ most egregious policies … Everything flows from the public’s belief that you stand for something. The most impressive legislative wins lose their force if people become convinced you’ll sell out your own values.”
Make no mistake: “sell out your own values” is the crux of the problem. On April 22, 2008, the day of the Pennsylvania primary we gave Howard Dean a deadline.
“We have our own Howard Dean Deadline: seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, without backroom deals, by the end of May or risk a Party rupture worse than 1968.
Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi are trying to steal this election the way Bush stole the election in 2000. They risk a Democratic Party rupture more profound and long lasting than the 1968 convention.”
We were mocked and disregarded in the same way the Tea Party has been mocked and disregarded. One month later, on Memorial Day 2008, the Democratic Civil War began:
“The Democratic Party is now engaged in the opening battles of a Civil War. As in the 1860s this war cannot be avoided. Fort Sumter has been fired upon…. Thus far, the Democratic? Party Civil War has been contained to the presidential level. At some point however those Democratic? officials and office holders who endorsed Obama will be held to account. As Kristen Breitweiser wrote Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose [sic] to blame…. The Democratic? Party Civil War has begun. It will spread.
There is a Democratic Civil War…. the question is whether the Civil War spreads down ticket from the Presidential level this election cycle or the next…. The Democratic Civil War, much like the great split that occurred when the courageous Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, will be about Civil Rights and Respect – this time for Women.“
It is no surprise to us that women are at the forefront of the Tea Party movement and that this is sometimes called the “Year of the Republican Women”. There is an atavistic memory of what was done to women in 2008 by Obama Dimocrats and there is an ocean size wound at the heart of the democratic process inflicted by Obama Dimocrats. None of that is forgotten.
For the moment the Tea Party activists have kept the saddle off their backs and put it on the back of the Republican establishment. That establishment, once in power, will begin to try to cast off the saddle. That fight will continue. The Democratic Civil war will also continue up to and after November 2, 2010. What happens after November 2, remains to be seen.
Is it possible that the Tea Party activists and the Democratic opposition to Barack Obama and his thugs have more in common that any of us realize? You betcha!. There is this intriguing article making the rounds these days:
“Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.
I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.
For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing. [snip]
For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.
What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.”
There was no difference because it is all a fake. The current forces of the Left and the Right are fakes. The Tea Party is infusing substance and reality from the bottom up to the right side of the debate and getting rid of its fakes.
Today we discuss the most naked political player of all as he hurls insult after insult at Barack Obama. Snark all you want about “naked” and “Bill Clinton” put together you Clinton haters and Obama Hopium Guzzlers – but Bill is as popular as ever and as powerful as ever and as confounding a thriving survivor as ever.
We previously discussed Naked Sarah Palin and Naked Hillary Clinton and today we laugh at how brutally Bill Clinton attacks Barack Obama. Quick, what is the most repeated argument Bill Clinton makes as he campaigns for candidates around the nation? The answer is a disguised attack on Barack Obama and one David Axelrod does not appreciate.
This morning Fox & Friends produced a segment about how David Axelrod does not like Bill Clinton’s Big Argument as he campaigns around the nation. As Bill Clinton travels the nation making a naked series of attacks against Barack Obama most Big Media outlets either miss or dress up Bill Clinton’s remarks. For instance, the dumb New York Times published a story last week stupidly called “Bill Clinton Stumps For Obama“. The story included Bill Clinton’s most repeated argument this campaign season:
“Bill Clinton Stumps for Obama [snip]
Even though Mr. Clinton insisted on Monday that he was only “peripherally and fleetingly” back in politics, he has been headlining rallies and fund-raisers across the country to buck up the depressed party faithful.
“They shouldn’t take this lying down,” Mr. Clinton said during a meeting with reporters and editors of The New York Times on Monday.
Blaming Republican policies for digging the deep hole the economy is in, he said the Democrats needed to plead with voters for more time to turn things around.
“I think we ought to say, ‘Look, don’t go back to the shovel brigade — give us two more years; if you don’t feel better you can throw us all out.’ ”
Um…, what quadrennial event occurs in two more years, in 2012? Why, surprise, surprise, surprise, it’s the presidential elections. Bill Clinton is saying that if things don’t get better in two years – sufficiently better that voters “don’t feel better” – then throw Barack out. Idiots at the New York Times apparently do not get the consequences of the argument Bill Clinton has crafted. These are writers who must not understand that “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is not just about clothes. Not the brightest at the New York Times these days, well educated no doubt, but dumb as a bag of bricks.
The introductory passage in the article is even worse. Who can write sentences such as these and not expect to be labeled gullible or stupid, or both: “He was against him before he was for him.” “…Bill Clinton was often at angry odds with the man who ultimately defeated his wife.” “…Mr. Clinton is stumping hard to help his onetime foe — and has emerged as one of the most important defenders of President Obama’s Congressional majorities.” These idiots apparently do not understand that every single time Bill Clinton speaks it demonstrates how sorely unqualified and lacking Barack Obama is.
Does it occur to the dolts that effectively saying ‘throw Barack Obama out in 2012’ is not “stumping hard to help his onetime foe.” In addition when Bill Clinton adds “And I think they can” to his main point “I hope they can avoid calamity” this does not mean that Bill Clinton thinks Obama Dimocrats will avoid calamity. Bill Clinton understands the difference between HOPE and actual performance.
The dolts at the New York Times might not understand what Bill Clinton is up to, but as Fox & Friends took notice of today, David Axelrod recognizes a threat when he sees one:
“(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I’d like to see him say, “We couldn’t get out of this $3 trillion hole in 21 months. Give us two more years. Don’t go back to the policies that dug the hole. But if we don’t do better” — this is the last thing — “if we don’t do better, you can vote against us all, and I’ll be on the ballot, too. Vote against us all if it’s not better.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So is that good political advice, vote against us all? Is that what President Obama will take, that advice? Will you say that to people?
AXELROD: Well, President Clinton is a — is a great politician, and I’m not in any way going to quarrel with him. I think people in 2012 will vote on this. I don’t think they need an invitation to do so.“
Axelrod knows what Bill Clinton is getting at even if the dolts at the New York Times are too oblivious. Bill Clinton is everywhere with the message of a clean-up in 2012. But more importantly, every time Bill Clinton appears (he’s been campaigning or will campaign in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Meet The Press, On the Record, and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart) Americans see what a real president looks like and compare him to the boob currently golfing and partying with his sleeveless wife.
And talk about absolutely NAKED. Here’s Bill Clinton discussing why he is speaking and making so many campaign appearances (note to dolts at New York Times, it’s about Hillary Clinton not to “help his onetime foe” Barack Obama):
“Mr. Clinton said he began making appearances only because Mrs. Clinton, in her current position, is forbidden from politicking. “So there was nobody besides me to honor the people that supported her,” he said.”
David Budowsky of The Hill makes a strong case for the abilities of Bill Clinton. Budowsky compares Bill Clinton to Babe Ruth “stepping to the plate”. Budowsky believes Bill Clinton can save the elections if he goes “full force”:
“As the 2010 campaign snarls to a close, Bill Clinton is the only living former president Americans identify with better times, economic optimism and prosperity.[snip]
The game-changing power of Bill Clinton in 2010 is that the last prosperous economy most voters remember was during the Clinton presidency.[snip]
With dozens of races too close to call, keep your eye on William Jefferson Clinton.”
Bill Clinton cannot save Obama Dimocrats and he himself knows that better than anyone. Bill Clinton is campaigning but he knows most of the candidates are politically dead and buried already and the most he can do is clear the path for a return to the party of FDR and a candidate in 2012 who is “ready on Day 1”. That party is not the Obama Dimocratic Party and that candidate is not Barack Obama.
“Bill Clinton largely steered clear of politics during the conference, but said at one point he wished more world leaders made their decisions based on facts.
“Do you know how many political and economic decisions are made in this world by people who don’t know what in the living daylights they are talking about?” Clinton said.”
Anyone think Barack Obama did not see this as a naked slap at himself? Anyone doubt that Michelle Obama yanked the sleeves of innocent passersby when she heard that?
Toby Harnden, puts a sinister veneer to the entire exercise, but at least he is aware that Bill Clinton is no fan of Barack Obama:
“What does Bill Clinton really think about ‘articulate and attractive’ Barack Obama?
Although Bill Clinton had the occasional intemperate outburst during the 2008 primary campaign, it is generally wise to assume that nothing he and his wife say is accidental. They weight their words carefully, often with a view to their own long-term political interests.
Ever since her 2008 disappointment, I’ve always thought that Hillary Clinton would run for president again in 2016 and, this far out, would stand a very good chance of winning. Given the way President Barack Obama’s performing, a 2012 primary challenge is not inconceivable.
So it was interesting to see Bill Clinton on two Sunday talk shows making fairly positive noises about the Tea Party – in stark contrast to the White House and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, who can’t stop themselves chortling about how stupid and bigoted they think members of the movement they are.
But what caught my ear was this from Bill Clinton on NBC: “The question is, what are the specifics? What really matters is what we’re going to do. And right now they’ve elected a lot of people who are articulate and attractive.” Read the full transcript here.
Ostensibly, he was referring to Tea Party victors in Republican primaries, such as Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell. But the concept of “articulate and attractive” but lacking in policy heft was exactly the Clintonian critique of Obama in 2008 – a critique, it has to be said, which looks ever more accurate as time goes on.“
While many Hillary supporters wish Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would not do anything which in any way could be construed as support for Barack Obama the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton know that someone is going to have to pick up the pieces of the Obama disaster and put together a viable opposition party in the mold of FDR. This adds another layer of understanding to Bill Clinton’s remarks that voters elect Democrats to fix things when they get messed up.
In addition, imagine the contempt Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton would engender among the very voters they will have to some day unite to clean up the Obama mess if they had pulled a Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman, Mike Castle type stunt to stay in power.
“So, to paraphrase Bill, right now we need leaders of substance who are not just pretty faces with fine words. Sounds to me like code for “We need Hillary not Obama” and the Clintons are already putting down a marker for another White House run.“
During the 2008 primary campaigns we often heard the argument that “it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush”, add Barack Obama’s mess to the Clinton clean up the mess equation.
While we’re at examining what exactly it is that Bill Clinton is saying these days let’s discuss this much ballyhooed ‘failed prediction’ on health care:
“Former president Bill Clinton, a champion of healthcare reform, admitted on Sunday that he made the wrong prediction about the popularity of President Obama’s healthcare bill.
Initially, Clinton had predicted that the polls in favor of Democrats would be boosted as soon as the legislation was signed into law. Instead, Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” his prediction was wrong for two reasons.
“First of all, the benefits of the bill are spread out of three or four years. It takes a long time to implement. And secondly, there has been an enormous and highly effective attack on it,” he said.[snip]
“I think he was shocked at the intensity of the Republican opposition,” Clinton said.”
Only a naive dope would have been shocked at the intensity of Republican opposition and all during the 2008 primaries Hillary Clinton said that Obama thought celestial choirs would sing after the elections. So why was there shock and awe at the united Republican front?
What was the context in which Bill Clinton advocated for a genuine health care reform plan at the Nutroots Nation conclave of Obama Hopium Guzzlers? The New York Times reported this on August 14, 2009:
“He complimented President Obama’s town-hall meeting in New Hampshire earlier in the week, saying he hit the right message. (He oddly noted, though, that “one good day in New Hampshire does not a campaign make,” which, while he was referring to Mr. Obama’s town-hall, also holds resonance from his wife’s primary win in that state that restored her confidence after her loss in Iowa to Mr. Obama.) [snip]
He counseled them to debate the best parts, toss out the ones no one could agree on and forget the bad. But stay, he urged, in the lane to get it done.
At that point, Mr. Clinton began a point-by-point revisit of the 1993-94 health care battles, contending that the insurance companies were now rewriting that history.”
What actually happened was Barack Obama made deals in secret with Big PhaRma and tossed out the good and kept the bad. As Bill Clinton was speaking to the Nutroots the full story of Obama’s secret deals were just coming to light. It was that very week that the full story of the Obama deals were beginning to emerge and they were ugly (read our take on August 11, 2009 HERE).
By the time Obama’s health scam passed in 2010, not August 2009, not even Bill Clinton could perfume the Obama stink called “health insurance reform”. When Bill Clinton made his prediction it was before Chris Christie won in New Jersey, before Bob McDonnell won in Virginia and well before Scott Brown became the senator from Massachusetts.It was after the Scott Brown victory that Obama threw whatever good there was remaining in the health scam, betrayed pro-choice men and women, and made every horrible deal in order to impose the horror of his health scam.
We were not the only ones at the time that wondered “Bill Clinton is no dope and he usually lowers expectations, not heightens them. Now, why would Bill do the contrary in this case?”
“Former President Bill Clinton is advising Democrats to pay attention to the grass-roots tea party movement and to talk openly about fiscal concerns ahead of November’s midterm elections.
“There are a lot of real people in this tea party movement that are saying something everyone should hear — which is, ‘Seems like everyone but average Americans are doing all right here. The people that caused the financial crisis are all back in great shape,’” Clinton said in a joint interview with Yahoo and the Huffington Post released over the weekend.”
Is Bill Clinton traveling around the country to benefit Barack Obama or to prepare for the necessary clean-up that must follow the November elections? Bill Clinton is no dope.
“All things being equal, Clinton said, he would prefer to stay out of the debate.
“I’m not in politics anymore, I really don’t want to do it,” said Clinton, though he does keep a robust schedule of fundraisers and appearances for Democrats, especially those who supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. “But because I had a good record on budgets, the size of government and the deficits — the things that the independents are concerned about, the things that the Republicans are attacking the president about — I seem to be in a relatively unique position that people at least listen to my arguments. I literally have no idea if I can turn any votes.”
Despite his claims to be a reluctant warrior, Clinton spoke with exuberance as he described what he would say if he were Obama. [snip]
From there he would turn to what in recent days he has made a regular riff, delivered as though he was Obama making the case for Democrats: “All I’m asking you for is two more years. You get a chance to fire us all in two more years, but don’t throw us out and embrace the policies that got us in trouble. Give us two years…See if what we’re doing is working, and you can throw us out.”
As noted above, we doubt Obama will take that advice. Obama does not do accountability.
“Pressed by a reporter on whether Democrats are being too quick to turn away from the lessons of the 1990s, when Clinton survived Republican efforts to evict him from office by reclaiming the loyalties of independent swing voters, the former president clearly agreed. [snip]
A POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released last week backs up Clinton’s assessment about voter enthusiasm and independent voters. [snip]
If Democrats do get routed in November, Clinton said, Obama’s own reelection prospects might improve, though this is hardly the path he would prefer to a second term. Based on his own experience amid similar circumstances in 1994, Clinton said his advice to Obama would be “to keep his chin up. You’ve still got to show up for work every day. And he’s got to give people hope. So he can’t get down. Or, if he does, he can’t show it. And he’s got to realize that, in the end, it’s not about him. It’s about the American people, and they’re hurting, and they hire us to fix things.”
“…they hire us to fix things.” Unfortunately Bill Clinton’s analysis and advice will fall on big deaf ears – Obama thinks “it’s about him.” Someone has to be hired after Obama to “fix things”.
Obama thinks “to know me is to love me” so all must be right with the world because I am on every TV show imaginable. But voters are rightly angry and Bill Clinton says “respect that anger”.
Treat the American people with respect, says Bill, “don’t play games”. Now, why would Bill have to say such things if Obama is respectful and not playing games?
Over at the fever pitch Obama Hopium den we call DailyKooks, there is no respect for the “racists” that are not happy with Barack Obama. Indeed, at DailyKooks, the “exhausted” Velma Hart was disrespected and attacked:
“It’s been 20 months and the magician Velma Hart voted for still didn’t fix her dilemma: Buying a new car or keeping her kids in a private school. But at least she got her 15 minutes, going from network to network, explaining her tremendous disappointment by president Obama’s non-whimsical answer.
I’ll give it to CNBC and the rest of the corporate media – This was a good one: Let’s take a middle class and pretty well off black lady, and make her the face of disappointed Obama voters. Not someone who’s really in bad shape, not someone who’s unemployed, not someone who lost their home, and of course she must be black – And she is exhausted because he didn’t snap his finger and reversed a decade of destruction, and then he didn’t give her the entertaining answer she was looking for.
I try not to doubt Miss Hart anxiety – over not being able to buy a new car while living in a two income household and putting two kids through private school – but she’s been shamelessly and cynically manipulated here, and gave the media exactly what they were looking for. Rupert Murdoch probably could not believe his lucky stars: A chance to spread the face of a black woman with the huge headline “BETRAYED” on the cover of the New York Post.”
There’s no respect for the “bitter” from the Obama acolytes. Bill Clinton is giving good advice when he can but he knows Obama and his supporters will not take that necessary advice. So Bill Clinton is not deluded enough to think the approaching “calamity” for Obama Dimocrats will be avoided.
Politically, Reunion was meant also to be part of the perfect congressional district, one drawn up after the 2000 Census to be an absolutely 50-50 suburban swing district. There would be no better place in America to judge the mood of the electorate.
Today, the mood in many of the houses along Reunion’s curving sidewalks is one of disappointment.
“I’ve never been more disenchanted,” said Donna Mastrangelo, 48, who moved here from Arizona in 2005. She supported Barack Obama in 2008 but now thinks the president overreached. Sitting on a park bench on a balmy afternoon, she turned to her husband, Louis, and said: “We can be swayed any which way at this point. . . . I don’t want anyone to assume my vote anymore. I want them to work for it.”
In 2008, 59 percent of the voters in Colorado’s 7th District were swayed by Obama’s promise of a government that works for the middle class. That year they reelected their Democratic congressman, Ed Perlmutter, for a second term. The swing district had swung – from Republican in its early years, to Democratic.
After four years of Democratic control in Washington, however, many independents here who voted for Obama now voice varying degrees of disapproval for the president and his party. They say they are frustrated by his inability to forge bipartisan compromise. They say Obama and the Democrats pursued an agenda that was too liberal and have not done enough to shore up the economy.
Sentiments like this can be overheard all around Reunion, and in outer-ring suburban neighborhoods across the country.”
Bill Clinton is no dope. With his naked eye he can see to 2012 when the present occupant will be thrown out and that salvation lies in a new presidential nominee:
“A significant majority of voters are considering voting against President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, expressing sour views of his new health care law and deep skepticism about his ability to create jobs and grow the sluggish economy, according to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll.
Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.
It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.”
Bill Clinton knows someone is going to have to pick up the pieces after the Obama disaster. Americans won’t feel better in 2012 and they will continue to throw the bums out as health care prices continue to escalate instead of the cost curve having been “bent” downwards as promised.
The after Obama clean up crew is either going to be a Republican, or someone who has stayed from away from Barack Obama and is the only credible candidate the Democrats have left to run. Bill Clinton is making it nakedly clear what the problem is and what will have to be done about the problem.
The problem is Barack Obama. And that is a naked fact no Emperor clothes can cover.
We thought we could move on to Hillary and Bill today but there are some things that need to be said which relate to Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. We will discuss Hillary Clinton today (Bill Clinton in a subsequent Part III), but first some other items in the news which highlight why Hillary Clinton supporters and Sarah Palin supporters have mutual interests and must form an alliance against sexism and misogyny.
This past Wednesday USA Today published an almost universally ignored article which demands attention from all Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters. As we Hillary Clinton supporters know, sexism and misogyny as political attacks are extremely effective:
“Calling a female candidate such sexist names as “ice queen” and “mean girl” significantly undercuts her political standing, a new study of voter attitudes finds, doing more harm than gender-neutral criticism based solely on her policy positions and actions.
Harder-edged attacks, such as referring to her as a prostitute, were equally damaging among voters, according to research commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s advocacy groups.
The survey said the advice often given to women — to ignore the attacks rather than risk giving them more attention or legitimacy — turns out to be wrong. In the study, responding directly helped the female candidate regain lost ground and cost her opponent support.”
Mainline “women’s advocacy groups” (think NARAL which supported John Edwards! then Barack Obama) stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back or disappeared during the primaries. Phony women advocates like Oprah Winfrey (who voted skin color not character) likewise proved either hapless or treacherous. Neither Hillary nor Sarah Palin should expect decency or support from mainline women’s groups.
“I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey. “Right now campaigns tend to be silent and try to tough it out, and this really opens up a whole new strategy of responding.”
The groups that sponsored the research are the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity. Thursday, they will announce a joint initiative called “Name It. Change It” designed to monitor and respond to sexism against female candidates in the media.
Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president of WCF, says demeaning or belittling language routinely afflicts women in both parties, from Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 to Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware now.”
We hope but will wait and see (and won’t hold our breaths) if the flowery words from the Women’s Media Center are worth a damn. We’ll wait and see if they denounce the sexism and misogyny directed at Sarah Palin and/or Hillary Clinton when the corrupt Obama Dimocratic Party tells them to shut up. If they live up to their words we will praise them and hug them as allies.
“• The female candidate lost twice as much support when even the mild sexist language was added to the attack. Support for her initially measured at 43% fell to 33% after the policy-based attacks but to 21% after the sexist taunts. The drop was significant among both men and women, those under 50 and over 50, and those with college educations and without.
• The sexist language undermined favorable perceptions of the female candidate, leading voters to view her as less empathetic, trustworthy and effective.
• Responding directly helped the women candidates’ regain support. The rebound occurred both after a mild response — the female candidate calling the discussion “inappropriate” and “meritless” and turning back to issues — and after a more direct counterattack that decried “sexist, divisive rhetoric” as damaging to “our political debate and our democracy.”
“Sports show asks NFL receivers: Would you rather see Palin in the White House — or in Playboy? [snip]
Needless to say, as any Hillary Clinton fan would tell you, this is a bipartisan problem. (And intrapartisan too!) The only question now: Will this be shrugged off somehow on grounds that Palin was “asking for it”? Don’t laugh — that argument has been made before, and not always by hard-left liberals.”
HotAir, a conservative website was one of the few outlets which reported on the study of the effects of sexually charged taunts on women politicians. We have yet to hear from the “Women’s Media Center” a denunciation of this vileness directed at Sarah Palin:
As Hillary Clinton prepares to travel to Australia, Helen Elliott has written a flattering portrait of Hillary as well as a discussion of feminism which seeks to expand the definition of that still fought over and controversial word. Elliott wrote a fine article then betrayed everything she wrote in the following paragraph:
“Hillary Clinton’s life – struggles, failures, as well as achievements – is a retrospective mapping of women’s lives in the last half of the 20th century. The facts might read as a tick-list of: “First woman to be . . .” but her progress is not about a single theme known as “Feminism”. It’s a bold, infinitely complex and as yet unfinished flow through some 60 years of breakneck change. Faced with the dismaying rise of flirty, dirty Sarah Palin, a woman who declares that all she ever needed to know was learnt on a basketball court, we cling to the idea of a woman of substance, whose eloquent life is making the impossible possible.”
The attack on Sarah Palin as “flirty, dirty” is disgusting. Where is the Women’s Media Center? Where is “Name It. Change It?” We admire Hillary Clinton as much as anyone. But we will not heighten Hillary Clinton by denigrating other women, particularly an accomplished woman “of substance” such as Sarah Palin. We don’t agree on policy issues all that much with Sarah Palin but she is a woman of substance by any definition. The attempts to sideline her as a “cheerleader” or a bimbo will will continue and we await the strong defense the Women’s Media Center will mount.
Palin not only fought the Murkowski machine in Alaska, she now threatens the entire Republican establishment as she leads Jeanne d’Arc fashion the forces of the Tea Party movement. Read our previous article Ms Elliott. Read some of our earlier Palin articles too.
“The usually secret warfare by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton has become open war and direct attacks against Hillary – straight from the Obama campaign apparatus. Yesterday the attacks from the Obama campaign against Hillary (shades of 2008!) became blatant, not disguised, attacks. [snip video]
That “yesterday” we mentioned was months ago. In that “yesterday” it was Steve Hildebrand leading the attack on Hillary Clinton. In a “yesterday” from this week, it’s David Axelrod with the quotable quote:
“The senior White House strategist was regarded as “a complete spin doctor” by Gen David Petraeus, then chief of the central command region that included Iraq and Afghanistan, Woodward claims.
Axelrod had trouble trusting some of Obama’s senior appointments. When the newly-elected president floated the idea of making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, Axelrod reportedly asked: “How could you trust Hillary?”
To fully appreciate what a dirty piece of scum David Axelrod is, you must read a February 2009 article called “I Must Save My Child” which details the pain, suffering and struggles of Susan Axelrod and her husband David Axelrod due to the epilepsy of their child Lauren. As their child suffered with savage seizures and surgery and electrodes implanted into her skull – who did the Axelrods turn to? Hillary Clinton. When he needed help David Axelrod did not ask his wife in regards to the life of his child “How could you trust Hillary?” But in Obama’s Chicago and Obama’s Washington – scum rises to the top.
“In a review of the “juicy bits” from the new Bob Woodward book Obama’s Wars, this is what the Daily Beast calls “passing the buck”:
[Hillary] must have hidden under a desk when Woodward went to Foggy Bottom. Perhaps she’s still smarting from The Agenda. There’s one killer scene: While the senior staff is formulating the war policy, she tells Obama, “Mr. President, the dilemma you face…” Everybody in the room notices the pronoun.
Wait a minute…I thought the President *wanted* to be the decider. If Hillary had tried to make the decision, what would the Daily Beast have said?”
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know the deal. Both know which way the wind blows as states like Ohio become killing fields for Obama Dimocrats and bulwarks for a vote magnet like Hillary Clinton:
“The voters Obama is losing — white-collar managers in Columbus, blue-collar union workers in Youngstown, pro-life independents around Cincinnati — are exactly the types he needs to win re-election in 2012, and they’re backing away from his party in droves. Obama tallied a whopping 60 percent disapproval ratingin Quinnipiac’s latest Ohio poll, with nearly two-thirds of voters disapproving of his economic performance.”
With all the signs pointing to an Obama disaster this November it is little wonder that Hillary Clinton is loudly, nakedly, engaged in a military style pincer movement.
One flank of the encircling movement struck at Obama’s signature message of Hope and Change. During the campaign Hillary often said that it is hard work and experience that can bring about change, not flowery words. This month Hillary nakedly repeated that argument and Big Media pretended it had nothing at all to do with Obama. Hillary said:
“Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things, and then when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it,” Clinton said, “I’ve seen them become very sobered, very quickly, about the challenges we face domestically and internationally.”
“You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo, who said, ‘You campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.’ Sometimes the poetry can get kind of hot,” Clinton added, “and a little over the top, but the prose brings you down to earth.”
Hillary laughs when she says “the poetry can get kind of hot” and so do we because it is such a specific reference to Obama. The words are exactly the words Hillary used in the 2008 primary campaigns:
“COMMERCE, CALIF. — Lately Hillary Clinton has taken to quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo on the stump. “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose,” Clinton tells her crowds. It’s another subtle way to target Barack Obama. The Clinton camp feels that the path to the Democratic nomination runs through her ability to paint Obama as a “talker not a doer.”
But Big Media pretended that “poetry” had something to do with the Tea Party.
“ Hillary Clinton sent a precisely calibrated multi-warhead missile (MIRV) into the heart of ObamaLand.[snip]
But Hillary Clinton today was a marvel to watch as she skewred Barack Obama in language which was both disguised and naked. [snip]
The sputtering economy, Mrs. Clinton said, “sends a message of weakness internationally.” She continued, “It is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to have the leverage that comes from having this enormously effective economic engine.”
The idiocy or willful blindness is amazing to watch for those with eyes wide open. Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton are almost striped bare but all Big Media does is “deck our kings” and queens with ill-fitting clothes.
No matter how overt Hillary Clinton is, now matter how forcefully Bill Clinton propels the verbal darts, no matter how many veils Sarah Palin removes – Big Media creates a whole other reality.
The wisdom or success of a Palin presidential run is not the question. The question is how much more naked does Sarah Palin have to be about her intentions before the psychos and Big Media acknowledge reality?
She’s running and running fast. At the very least Palin, like a sharpshooting billiards player who sets up angles and has the balls strategically lined up, is setting up the table. Mark Halperin has put aside the Hopium and taking No-Doz:
“TO: Coastal Elites, the Media and Establishment Politicians of Both Parties
RE: Sarah Heath Palin
Don’t underestimate Sarah Palin. Yes, she is hyper-polarizing: she sends her fans into rapture and drives her detractors stark raving mad. But she can dominate the news cycle with a single tweet and generate three days of coverage with a single speech (as she did this past Friday in Iowa). Her name recognition is universal.[snip]
Trash her all you want (even you Republicans who are doing it all the time behind her back) for being uninformed, demagogic and incoherent, and brandish the poll numbers that show fewer and fewer Americans think she is qualified to be President. Strain to apply political and practical norms to Alaska’s former governor. You are missing the point.[snip]
But what you need to appreciate is that the same dynamics of supply and demand that Palin has cleverly exploited for financial gain also make her inimitably formidable as a political force.
Take this weekend’s Des Moines, Iowa, speech, for example. You all perceived it as a rambling nothingburger of a diatribe, with a convoluted, self-pitying screed about the media. And you considered the trip itself a missed opportunity, since Palin held no meetings with grass-roots activists and didn’t lay a foundation for the kind of voter contact essential to compete in the Hawkeye State’s caucuses.
But ask yourself why Palin was in Iowa this of all weekends. Remember that she herself negotiated the date for the Iowa Republican Party’s annual Ronald Reagan dinner. This allowed her to conveniently skip the Values Voter Summit simultaneously going on in Washington, where most of the other potential 2012 Republican candidates appeared. By choosing Iowa over Washington, Palin avoided having to compete head to head with her would-be rivals and dodged the event’s concluding straw poll. Meanwhile, Palin got more weekend coverage than all the other prospects combined. Not everything she has done thus far has been obviously calculated, but her choices overall have been too savvy to be coincidence or luck.”
From the very beginning we denounced those who referred to the Tea Party movement as “teabaggers”. We saw the potential force that was developing. Tea Party activists were derided. Not so much now. So continue to deride Sister Sarah at your own peril Big Media and Hopium Guzzlers.
Likewise Sarah Palin has been derided. Shortly after Sarah Palin was selected by John McCain we read something quite silly that confirmed to us how smart this lady is. We thought her selection by McCain was inspired and said so on the very day her selection was announced. The selection of Palin was not happenstance. There were a lot of organized people lobbying for her selection. A lot of things about Palin are not happenstance and instead a very deliberate, very intelligent, calculation on her part.
“Hair, of course, is never just about the hair. Intentionally or not, hairstyles help answer the voters’ throw-down question: “Who does she think she is?”
Hillary Clinton struggled for years to achieve hair credibility. Now Ms. Palin’s upsweep is being praised and derided across the Internet. Do her bun and bangs signal that Ms. Palin does not want to attract attention to her appearance — even as she wants to remain presentably attractive?
Of course, a hairstyle may not tell you about her views on universal health care. But how Ms. Palin honed her image can be glimpsed at the Beehive, a tiny pink-collar haven in Wasilla, a mountain-rimmed community of less than 10,000.[snip]
Ms. Palin’s appointments were multitasking events, Mrs. Steele recounted. The governor would sit in full foil, checking her BlackBerry, writing speeches and chatting with customers as her daughter Piper played nearby.[snip]
As Mrs. Palin became a public figure, Mrs. Steele said, she gave more thought to her image.
“She’s very involved in her look and how she’s perceived,” Mrs. Steele said. “We would talk a lot about how if she looked too pretty or too sexy, people wouldn’t listen to her. How important it was for people to see her as an intelligent, smart woman. It was comical when her hair was down, how big a difference that would make, especially when she was running for governor.”
Eventually, Mrs. Steele suggested that Ms. Palin put up her hair because “Sarah wanted to look more professional and ready to work and not come across as high maintenance and fussy.”[snip]
The two experimented with full bangs, side-swept bangs, clips, curls, twists and blond streaks. “We just kept polishing her look,” Mrs. Steele said. “We would try more warm, red and coppery highlights or more of a contrast with pale highlights, not to be severe but just more striking.”
Put aside the sexism and misogyny that such an article displays so vividly (we confess to mocking male John Edwards in The House, The Hedge, And The Hare). That Sarah Palin has been so attentive and perceptive, from the outset, about her image and the need to control that image informed us that this was not the bumbling bimbo many sought to turn her into.
John Edwards knew his pretty looks, smooth skin, and truly beautiful hair, along with that lovely smile was an asset to be exploited. Smart politicians know looks matter and that they can be used to send a message. Sarah Palin devised her appearance not to be a sex bombshell (recall that sexist Newsweek cover of Sarah in sexy gym clothes) but to take advantage of her attractiveness as well as send a message to her “base” that “I am one of you.”
Hillary Clinton, once said, “If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.” Hillary knows the tricks of appearance and message sending via clothes and looks.
At the risk of belaboring the point, Sarah Palin chose a hairstyle that would appeal to middle America not coastal elites. Palin knows who she is and who her voters are. This is no dummy cheerleader to be mocked without paying a price (just ask David Letterman). Palin and her “do” courtesy of The Beehive is not as overt as a mullet but she gets her message across to those she wants to communicate with.
“The past 22 months have been replete with situations in which Palin has refused to adhere to the conventional playbook of presidential contenders and party honchos. That posture, along with — let’s face it — her watchability, star quality and good looks, is what keeps her core supporters hanging on her every word. Her followers forgive her sloppy syntax and seemingly haphazard methodology — to them, this makes her accessible, relatable and real. The more she is attacked and belittled, the more they rally to her defense. And when she has laid hands on her chosen 2010 candidates, such as Nikki Haley and Christine O’Donnell, she is able to transfer that protective shell, shepherding them through the slings and arrows of “the politics of personal destruction” to victories against Establishment favorites.”
The current crop of Dimocrats have learned too late that whatever “charms” Obama has will not transfer to others. Yes, appearing with Palin can hurt some, but those that can be hurt by such an appearance are not people Palin worries about. In addition, smacking Obama about helps candidates who want to win succeed. Smacking Palin about gets you into trouble if you are a Republican or a snarky comedian:
“Palin’s strength also derives from the unwillingness of you Republicans to take her on or to call her out for her more detrimental candidate selections and statements. [snip]
Most of you Republicans are afraid to challenge Palin publicly, in part because you recognize that she speaks to the mood and emotions of the Tea Party and other conservatives better than anyone else. Her anti-Washington barbs and taunting denigration of the President and his policies hit home and get out the vote. She is almost certainly going to be in a position to take a victory lap of sorts on Nov. 2.
Palin is operating on a different plane, hovering higher than a mere celebrity, more buoyant than an average politician. Some of you are too young, or too forgetful, to recall the breathless fusses over Donald Trump and Warren Beatty when they toyed with presidential bids, or how much oxygen Ross Perot sucked up when he ran in 1992. You may think Palin is full of hot air, but there is enough of it to power her from Alaska to the Republican nomination in 2012, and until she unambiguously takes herself out of the running, or until the nomination is definitively won by another, she will remain both a force and a force field.
All of you are certain she can’t win the presidency — and as of today you are right. But the nomination is another kettle of salmon, and she bears more in common with the past three presidential winners than with the passel of hopefuls clamoring for donations, press attention and straw votes. She is like Obama: the camera loves her and both sides of the political spectrum hang on her every word. She is like Bush: able to communicate with religious conservatives and Middle Americans. Most of all, she is like Bill Clinton: what doesn’t kill Sarah Palin makes her stronger. So as the world gets ready for the midterm elections and for the start of the epic contest in which Republicans will pick their champion to go into battle against Barack Obama, be advised: Palin is very much alive and, despite what you think, extraordinarily strong.”
“Former president Bill Clinton had words of warning for Democrats who think Sarah Palin could be the best thing to happen to President Obama in a 2012 presidential bid – “It’s always a mistake to underestimate your opponent.”
“In the Republican primaries she’s very popular with the conservative base. She gets more people to come out,” he told me. “And she hasn’t won all of her endorsements, but she’s won most of them. And you know, she’s a compelling, attractive figure.”
I sat down with the former president as he kicked off the sixth annual Clinton Global Initiative. Palin, who recently made a high profile trip to Iowa, was the subject of Mark Halperin’s “One Nation” column Monday. I asked Clinton to react to Halperin’s take on the former Alaska governor that “Most of all, she is like Bill Clinton: what doesn’t kill Sarah Palin makes her stronger.”
Clinton laughed and then offered his own observations.
“I do think she’s a resilient character. And we may be entering a sort of period in politics that’s sort of fact free, where the experience in government is a negative,” he told me.
“I think she’s clearly a public figure who is, who speaks well and persuasively to the people who listen to her. And she’s somebody to be reckoned with,” he said. “And she’s tough.”
Clinton recalled when “people were making fun of her” he read about Palin’s husband finishing the last 500 miles of Alaska’s Iron Dog race with a broken arm.
“Now, where I come from people like that. They think that’s pretty good,” he said.”
Bill Clinton, a billiard player who knows how to set the table, had more than Sarah Palin in mind when he declared “…we may be entering a sort of period in politics that’s sort of fact free, where the experience in government is a negative.” But that’s all for Part II.
If you think issues matter in the Age of Fake you are an idiot. It’s all ploys and plots in the Age of Fake. Fake president, fake congress, fake Democrats, fake progressives, fake events, fake laws with fake names, fake media, fake news, fake issues – it’s all a fake.
Examine the fake drolleries in the U.S. Senate today. A Defense Department appropriations bill was supposed to be voted on in order to keep the Defense Department funded. Harry Reid, in a desperate battle to keep his senate seat away from Sharon Angle decided to play tricks. Reid threw into the appropriation bill two amendments in order to get him votes for reelection and gull voters into voting for the retrograde Obama Dimocratic Party.
The first amendment was the hallucinatory “Dream Act” which added immigration language and provisions to the military appropriations bill. This amendment was designed to help Reid and Obama Dimocrats convince Latinos that they were doing what they promised to do two years ago.
The second amendment was a fake “repeal” of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy which keeps Gay American from serving in the U.S. armed forces. This so-called “repeal” was a fake nod, without real effort behind it, to the Gay community in order to get votes from gullible Gays and liberals.
The Dream Act was an act, a political ploy designed to hide the reality that Obama and his band of Hopium fueled Dimocrats broke their promise on “comprehensive” immigration reform. The DADT provision was a handover of congressional authority to Obama and a few top military people to eventually decide the fate of Gay Americans who wish to serve in the armed forces.
Today all the fake hit a very real Republican filibuster. Here is what happened:
“Senate Republicans have blocked an effort to repeal the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.
The partisan vote was a defeat for gay rights groups who saw the provision in a defense authorization bill as their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, which authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that Republicans weren’t given sufficient leeway to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.”
“Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the law will prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.
“The whole thing is a political train wreck,” said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.
Socarides said President Barack Obama “badly miscalculated” the Pentagon’s support for repeal, while Democrats made only a “token effort” to advance the bill.
“If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this,” he said.”
“Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to a bill authorizing $726 billion in military spending next year. With little time left for debate before this fall’s congressional elections, the bill received little attention until gay rights groups backed by pop star Lady Gaga began an aggressive push to turn it into an election issue. [snip]
Gates has asked Congress not to act until the military finishes a study, due Dec. 1, on how to lift the ban without causing problems. He also has said he could live with the proposed legislation because it would postpone implementation until 60 days after the Pentagon completes its review and the president certifies that repeal won’t hurt morale, recruiting or retention.
In another blow to the bill, Obama’s pick to lead the Marine Corps told a Senate panel on Tuesday that he worried that changing the policy would serve as a “distraction” to Marines fighting in Afghanistan.”
Lady Gaga did more than Barack Obama, the hooker Lady Marmalade of Washington D.C. Only the very stupid Big Blog Boys believe that Obama would not find an excuse to certify “that repeal won’t hurt morale”. Very fake Gay Big Blog Boys think Obama really, really likes Gay people.
Think we are being unfair to Barack Obama Lady Marmalade?
Consider that“a few hours” before the vote Barack Obama finally broke his silence on the bill and further destabilized potential passage by “strongly” objecting to a Guantanamo provision in the bill. It was all a ruse to get the Defense money and fool voters into thinking he wanted the other provisions passed as well.
Dimocrats, including Gay Big Blog Boys, knew Obama’s Gay bashing history but they applauded Obama nevertheless. Now the Gay Big Blog Boys will whine and pout.
Those Gay Big Blog Boys that raised money for Obama and loved Obama are not proud Gay men (we’re sorely tempted to use the “F” word here as a sign of total contempt for these swine). Read the assessment of the Gay swine Big Blog Boys from last week:
“With the imminent demise of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise that did not, in any case, repeal DADT (even though the NYT and other lazy journalists like to claim it did), and the imminent demise of the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, President Obama is about to have accomplished a record zero of his top promises to the gay community. A record that, if we lose the House, will likely remain at zero for the next six years, if the President is so lucky as to win re-election.
We were told that the President simply couldn’t get to his promises to our community in his first two years in office because we are a nation at war, and he had to work on health care reform, the economy, and many other issues that were meant to believe were far more important than our basic civil and human rights.
And now, after all the pandering by all the pro-Obama apologists who said that we were wrong to ask the President to address our community’s needs during his first two years in office, that we were wrong to warn of the imminent loss of a Democratically-controlled House, and how that loss would stymie gay rights progress for years to come, and that we were wrong to suggest that this President would never, ever get to addressing a real repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA – after all that, it turns out we were right.
Barack Obama is on the precipice of accomplishing a grand total of none of his major promises to gay and lesbian Americans in return for our supporting his candidacy with our votes and our money. I’m not smelling change.[snip]
Perhaps, though I would argue that it’s precisely Obama’s fault that Democrats are in such a sorry state. After all, who’s the leader of our party? Who took the lead in setting our agenda last year…. [snip]
It clearly was Barack Obama’s choice not to move ahead with any of his major promises to the gay community in the first two years of his administration. No one else is to blame other than the President for that simple decision. That decision may have killed any chance of ever passing ENDA, or repealing DADT and DOMA, for the entire four years that President Obama in office. It was Barack Obama’s choice not to even touch DADT until this year, and then not to push for a full repeal, but rather some make-shift compromise that may, or may not, lead to some kind of change in the policy at some future date (though what kind of change, for the better or the worse, isn’t a guarantee). We simply weren’t important enough, and now it appears we are getting nothing.
What is the point anymore?[snip]
We were told that Obama would be our “fierce advocate.” We were told that by Barack Obama himself. That, my friends, has turned out to be a crock. The President is not our advocate, and on no issue, gay or otherwise, is the man fierce.”
This is truly repulsive stuff. We’re not talking about Obama. We have known Obama is repulsive for too long. The ones that are repulsive are simpering creeps like the writer of the above excerpt. John Aravosis and his political bed mate Andrew Sullivan knew all this about Obama but they raised money for him and attacked Hillary Clinton. Aravoisis now pretends to be a fierce critic of Obama but his dirty attacks on Hillary Clinton are not forgotten.
Aravosis the hypocrite simpering whiner who fellated Obama repeatedly needs to come clean about his acknowledged dirty deeds performed in service for Barack Obama. Now this traitor to the Gay community wants to be perceived as a defender of Gay people but he forever will be known as one of those that betrayed the Gay community in service to Barack “Lady Marmalade” Obama.
Aravosis does not have the intellectual honesty to understand how these words he wrote apply to every Hillary Clinton supporter but we will post them just so we can laugh at that fool:
“But as I’ve written before, I’m not a big fan of being betrayed by friends, even when I know my enemies would have treated me worse. I expect my enemies to treat me like a pariah. I don’t expect my friends to do the same. And in many ways, it’s worse when the indifference, and the lies, come from a friend rather than an enemy.”
Never trust a back stabber ‘sis. The same knife used to stab others in the back will someday be stuck in you.
* * * * * *
As to the DREAM act, which was a fake publicity stunt to bamboozle the Latino community in the same way Obama Dimocrats succeed in bamboozling the Gay community, there is not much to add. It’s all the same fake stunt. The promised “comprehensive immigration reform” never came. Sorry Latinos who believed treacherous Barack Obama – you were just as stupid as the Gay people who believed Barack Obama – and the Black people, and Asians, and Greens and Republicans, and Independents, and men, and women, and Whites, and….
Do we need genuine comprehensive immigration reform? You betcha!
Every time we reported on Obama’s Aunt Zeituni we have been fair to her. We have noted that Obama exploited his Aunt and Uncle in his book and then when he no longer needed them for narrative material he forgot all about them. We did note Aunt Zeituni’s illegal contributions to Barack Obama’s campaign and the campaign to keep her under wraps and not answer any questions about her creepy nephew. But we always said that we did not want Obama’s aunt “to be hounded and persecuted” the way others (we referred to Joe the Plumber) have been.
“If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen.” Those are the words from 58-year-old Zeituni Onyango of Kenya in a recent exclusive interview with WBZ-TV.
Onyango is the aunt of President Barack Obama. She lived in the United States illegally for years, receiving public assistance in Boston.
‘I KNEW I OVERSTAYED’ [snip]
Onyango had violated the law, and she knew it.
“I knew I had overstayed” she told WBZ-TV’s Jonathan Elias when the two sat down one-on-one.
ASSIGNED PUBLIC HOUSING
Zeituni Onyango said she came to the United States in 2000 and had every intention of leaving. Then, however, she says she got deathly ill and was hospitalized. When she recovered, she said she was broke and couldn’t afford to leave.
For two years Onyango said she lived in a homeless shelter, before she was assigned public housing despite thousands of legal residents also awaiting assistance. “I didn’t take any advantage of the system. The system took advantage of me.”
“I didn’t ask for it; they gave it to me. Ask your system. I didn’t create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system,” she said unapologetically…
… “To me America’s dream became America’s worst nightmare,” she said adamantly. “I have been treated like public enemy number one.”
It’s easy to see the Aunt Zeituni in Barack Obama. Barack Obama has turned the American Dream into a Hopium fueled nightmare where fakery is all and arrogance rules.
The narratives for this November’s elections and November 2012 are now almost set. The “raise money for smear ads” Obama Dimocratic strategy is in play. Obama Dimocrats want every voter to forget that the issue this November is Barack Obama. The way to accomplish this is by fear and smear.
In Delaware the strategy is to call Christine O’Donnell a “witch” and forget that the Obama Dimocratic candidate is Harry Reid’s “pet”. Obama Dimocrats will try to use Christine O’Donnell as a can of paint to color all opposition candidates. The Republican establishment, desperate to hold on to power, is busy with their own tried and true methods as well.
Courtesy of the JournoListers at Politicowe now know how the Republican establishment views Sarah Palin and how they will marginalize her. Tony Perkins, not the actor from the film Psycho, but Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council clued everyone in this weekend. How the psychos plan to handle Sarah Palin:
“Palin’s poor finish in the presidential balloting but solid second in the vice-presidential contest appeared to reflect the view of some activists on the right who like her more as a rabble-rouser than a president, said Perkins.
“I think she’s a great spokesman,” Perkins said, adding that “she says what a lot of people think.”
“But you know a lot of people sometimes realize we shouldn’t say everything we think,” he continued. “Maybe it is that she is more of a cheerleader and one who rallies conservatives together as opposed maybe to being their top choice for president.”
Get it? Cheerleader! Get it? ‘The little woman talks too much without thinking and besides she’s not like the players on the field, she’s just there to cheer on the boys! That idiot George W. Bush was a cheerleader too and that did not work out so well.’ Get it now? Sarah Palin according to the psychos is not a player she’s just a cheerleader on the sidelines cheering on the big boys. Left or Right, Right or Left, the sexism and misogyny is the same.
Now we know how they will attack Sarah Palin – put some pom-poms on the preeetee little thing, a nice tight fitting sweater to highlight her curves, and the little woman is in her place. This is a smart strategy of diminishment because it acknowledges Palin’s physical attractiveness, and at the same time puts her obvious power to persuade into the much lower rank of cheerleader at the sidelines not player in the field. It’s a very clever strategy which seeks to counter Palin’s “Mama Grizzley” brand yet keep her making sandwiches and phone calls and stuffing envelopes and be the good little cheerleader she is.
But does this look like a sideline pretty girl willing to only cheer on the boys and not take the ball and run with it herself?”
* * * * * *
The tactics they used (and by that we mean psychos like Tony Perkins) against Hillary Clinton for decades are the tactics the Obama psychos used against Hillary Clinton in 2007/2008. They’re (the psychos Obama and Perkins) still using the same tactics against Hillary and any woman who gets in their way. But Sarah Palin has the Hillary Clinton example to guide her and now Hillary Clinton has the Sarah Palin example to guide her as well.
The goal of the psychos is to keep Sarah Palin supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters from understanding their common goals. The enemy for both groups is the sexism and misogyny that will be deployed to attack both candidates.
Hillary Clinton must learn from Sarah Palin about the growing irrelevance of Big Media. Sarah Palin must learn from Hillary Clinton the subtle arts of warfare. Sarah Palin delights in mocking and slapping her opponents. Hillary Clinton has a much softer touch. A combination of the two approaches is desirable for both future candidates.
“I have seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things and then when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it, I’ve seen them become very sobered very quickly about the challenges we face domestically and internationally,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Hillary Clinton is not talking about the Tea Party movement. Hillary Clinton is taking aim at Barack Obama.
It’s amazing how much vetting there is of Christine O’Donnell. Barack Obama was never vetted thus.
We must reveal our bias here. We do not think much of Christine O’Donnell. We hold her at the same level of esteem as we hold Arriana Huffington. This is to say – very very low. There is something cloying and dishonest and opportunistic about her that reminds us not only of the Huff n’ Puffer but of Barack Obama as well. But we understand why Delaware Republicans and many Republicans/conservatives chose her over Mike Castle even though Castle was a supposed shoo-in as Senator and would have increased the already strong likelihood of a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate. The people at HotAir explain why O’Donnell was a much better choice for them than Castle:
“I think many high-information voters see things this way: if we can retake the House and achieve a blocking minority in the Senate – both of which are increasingly probable, even if O’Donnell loses in Delaware – Congress can act as a check on Obama until January 2013.
On the other hand, a RINO-heavy Congressional majority would be likely to set Obama’s course in stone – e.g., with only marginal changes to Obamacare, with some version of amnesty and some version of cap-and-trade – and actually make the Obama agenda harder to decouple from down the road.
The Republicans who would take over as a majority in 2011 just aren’t convincing to a lot of voters. The voters aren’t stupid; they’re using their votes for their own purposes. It’s not a knock on Karl Rove that his electoral advice has been overruled. It’s a signal that something much bigger is going on, and the rules have gone out the window. Expertise with running campaigns is secondary right now. In first place is a candidate’s message – and the people are listening with a very critical ear. They’ve left their party’s, and nation’s, direction on autopilot for a long time now, but they’re no longer willing to. Their vote is the one thing they have direct, personal control over, and they’re using it to do what they want to do.”
This is a very logical position. Obama Dimocrats deride the Joe Lieberman’s and the Ben Nelson’s in their caucus when it comes to legislative votes. But these Obama Dimocrats love it when Lieberman and Nelson vote with them in the first vote of a congress which gives them control of the institution and all those lovely big offices and all those lovely big budgets and lovely big perks. What O’Donnell supporters understood was that O’Donnell was a sure vote for them on the policy issues that matter to them. Who gets the big offices and control of the Senate was less important to these O’Donnell voters and supporters. It’s an entirely logical position especially considering the likelihood of Republican control of the House of Representatives which would provide the subpoena power to conduct investigations.
Even putting aside our distaste for Christine O’Donnell it still cannot be denied that in the last century O’Donnell did and/or said some very stupid things. Her excuses are not entirely convincing but they do have some currency with those who make excuses for youthful indiscretions.
“How many of you didn’t hang out with questionable folks in high school?” she asked fellow Republicans at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware on Sunday. “There’s been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now,” O’Donnell jokingly assured the crowd.”
O’Donnell provided the opening and now from the Left and the Right the “she’s a witch” narrative is used to attack her. All powerful women and even not so powerful women who display ambition are attacked as witches. A powerful woman who does not use potions and charms to work her wicked ways is something that cannot be understood nor allowed.
That in the last century O’Donnell went on TV shows to exhibit her foolishness cannot be denied. That her playmates on these sad shows included Arriana Huffington, Bill Maher and (Huffington enabler) Al Franken makes her even more foolish and even more of an exhibitionist than we can tolerate. Now O’Donnell’s youthful foolishness and indiscretions are catching up with her via Maher’s threats to release more video of his insipid TV show when she was a guest. These distractions will hurt O’Donnell and her supporters because they confuse the voters and confound a discussion of the issues.
But these distractions and confusions will not be as hurtful as they appear to be now. The issue in the elections of 2010 are not Christine O’Donnell and her dubious qualifications to be a United States Senator. The issue is, was and will be – Barack Obama.
We applaud the vetting of Christine O’Donnell. What matters in any election is the voter, not the candidate. Screw the candidate. Screw Hillary Clinton, screw Bill Clinton, screw Barack Obama, screw George W. Bush, screw Ronald Reagan, screw Abe Lincoln, screw Frankie Roosevelt – it the voters that matter and the voters deserve all the information they need about a candidate to make an informed vote.
In fact the reason why Christine O’Donnell might get elected despite all the flaws the vetting will reveal about her is that voters are increasingly aware that they don’t know who Barack Obama is, was, or will be. Christine O’Donnell as a reliable Republican vote might be the way for voters to get some of those answers about Barack Obama. The results of the vetting of Christine O’Donnell might not mean much because what the voters now crave, in this moment of uncertainty about who exactly Barack Obama is, is a vetting of Barack Obama.
Recall when Harry Reid said: “I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate.” “I’ve always thought Chris Coons is going to win. I told him that and I tried to get him to run. I’m glad he’s running. I just think the world of him. He’s my pet.”
“I’m one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for,” a woman told President Obama at a town hall.
“My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it’s starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we’re headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?,” she added.”
Swing state Ohio is swinging an ax. The ax is aimed at the necks of Obama Dimocrats. Reliable rumors are also swung about. The rumors are that the Obama Dimocrats realize the situation in Ohio is so bad the major Obama Dimocratic organizations which fund campaigns and provide assistance are pulling out of Ohio. Even the polling organization allied with Obama Dimocrats is considering a cessation of polling in swing state Ohio.
Before we get to the Ohio specifics consider this story which deals with the Obama Dimocrats’ strongest and most powerful allies:
“The Democrats will depend on labor unions — the shock troops of their political campaigns — to offset two new developments this election cycle: Tea Party enthusiasm and corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.
Labor leaders, alarmed at a possible Republican takeover of one or both Houses of Congress, promise to devote a record amount of money and manpower to helping Democrats stave off disaster. But political analysts, and union leaders themselves, say that their efforts may not be enough because union members, like other important parts of the Democratic base, are not feeling particularly enthusiastic about the party — a reality that, in turn, further dampens the Democrats’ chances of holding onto their Congressional majorities.”
All the Big Labor threats against certain Obama Dimocrats, if they voted the wrong way, are now abandoned.
“But Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan political handicapper, questioned how successful labor’s push will be. “The question is, how effective can labor be when so many of their people are unemployed or underemployed and just not happy campers?” he said. “How effective will they be in getting people to do the hard work — to do the phone banks, the get-out-the-vote, all the heavy lifting?”
Patricia Elizondo, president of the 2,000-member Milwaukee local of the International Association of Machinists, fears just that.
“People are disappointed,” she said. “People have been unemployed for two years, and they’re unhappy that the healthcare bill was not as good as they expected. Two years ago, I had many members going door-to-door to campaign. Now they’re saying, ‘Why should I? We supported that candidate, but he didn’t follow through.’ ”
Big Labor chieftains have forgotten they represent the people who pay their salaries. The Ohio Democrats likewise have forgotten they are Democrats and prefer to be Obama Dimocrats, D minus logo included. When Governor Ted Strickland won in Ohio it was because he represented a southeastern Ohio district with many white working class voters who were suspicous of the Democratic Party. Ted Strickland assured them as Governor he would govern as a representative of the entire state. Now Ted Strickland’s entire campaign is a “support Obama” abomination. And now we have the results of that strategy for Obama Dimocrats in Ohio:
“By a 58 – 37 percent margin, likely Ohio voters want a U.S. Senator who opposes President Obama’s policies, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey, conducted by live interviewers, finds. And by 49 – 31 percent, voters want Republicans rather than Democrats to control the U.S. Senate.”
That’s a result for the Senate seat. In the Senate race Republican Rob Portman is ahead of Obama Dimocrat Lee Fisher by 20 points, 55-35%. Voters in Ohio disapprove of Obama 60-38%.
“It’s difficult to find any good news for Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher in these numbers. Likely voters in Ohio, as is the case nationally, are angry at the status quo and with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House. Fisher is taking it on the chin from those who are trying to send a message to the White House,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “A Democrat who is losing among women likely voters by 8 points is a candidate in trouble.”
In the Ohio governor’s race the news is a bit better, if you consider a 17 point margin as opposed to a 20 point margin “better”.
“Republican challenger John Kasich has a 54 – 37 percent lead over Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in the race to be Ohio’s next chief state executive, with much of his lead due to overwhelming support among independent voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters released today. [snip]
“Ohio is not an island. Clearly Kasich is benefitting from the national anti-incumbent, anti- Democratic wave which seems to be sweeping the country,” said Brown. “Ohio, which is the most important swing state in the country come presidential elections, is also a good marker for the off- year balloting. If Kasich were to lead a Republican sweep in Ohio, it would be a good indication that the Republican landslide many are predicting nationally might come to fruition.”‘
“There is no debate regarding the centrality of Ohio to Democrats’ chances in the fall election. In addition to the competitive Senate and governor’s races, there are as many as six Democratic-held House seats in play — districts where Democratic incumbents need the top of the ticket to perform competitively if they want to hold their seats.
Seems strange saying this but really doubt we’ll poll Ohio again this cycle“
PPP of course is a major Democratic polling firm. If they think there is not even a rationale for further polling in Ohio how wrong can the latest poll numbers be?
JournoLister Marc Ambinder, always full of excuses to expel in defense of Obama Dimocrats has this to say about Ohio:
“With the past few days given over to Democratic triumphalism, the reality is that the big picture remains roughly the same for Democrats. In Ohio, it’s getting so bad for Democrats that the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are actively weighing their level of commitment.
Public and private polling from the state suggests that Democrats will lose the governor’s mansion, currently held by Ted Strickland, the Senate race (for an open seat that was held by a Republican), and at least four House races (OH 01, OH 15, OH 13, OH 16). [snip]
Some Ohio Democrats think Strickland has allowed himself to be associated too much with the White House, turning this once independent-seeming guy into a prop. The federal mud might have stuck.”
The Obama Dimocrats will respond in Ohio and in every other state with the typical Obama strategy: raise money and sling mud. This strategy will not work. HWC explains:
“I don’t think American voters, in 2010, with the government robbing them blind in a rush to spend more and more and more and with a never-ending recession, give a tinker’s damn what Christine O’Donnell or any other candidate thinks about masturbation. This is another perfect example of the entrenched power in both parties and the media, throwing up a wall of chaff to distract us from “their” business.
What these idiots ought to start figuring out is that the voters don’t care who they elect as long as they send a bum home. The voters of Delaware would vote for a ham sandwich over Mike Castle this week. The Mike Castles of the world better start paying attention because it is pretty clear that the voters have not intention of putting down their baseball bats. You would have thought that a Repubican winning Ted Kennedy’s seat would have been enough of a message. Or Charlie Crist getting clobbered in Florida. Or Arlen Spector in PA. Or Bennett in Utah. But, I guess you have to keep pounding these idiots in the head. They seems to be slow learners.“
“It hasn’t been easy: Only a handful of black voters came to a health-care town-hall event hosted by Driehaus amid the rundown pews of a one-room Baptist church earlier this month. Attendance was so sparse that Victoria Parks, the African- American field outreach director for Driehaus, headed to another church across the street to recruit additional participants from a gospel choir practice.”
Driehaus is a slow learner. On October 17 Driehaus is importing the “dangerously radioactive” Barack Obama to campaign for him. A very slow learner indeed.
“MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a question. Just where do you think this explosion of voter anger we saw last night in Delaware and have seen growing in voters in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and in just about every poll across the country is going to take us?
Last night, as the dust began to clear, I heard progressive glee that the anger was on the verge of burning itself out, that the victory of Christine O`Donnell in Delaware like that of Sharron Angle in Nevada, was throwing away the election. How could voters in the general election go so far as to elect one of these candidates the angry primary voters have kicked pup?
I supposed I had my eyes on something different. While others were seeing dead people, the defeated Mike Castle, who was supposed to be strong this November, I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn`t know it would come from the right and center.
2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don`t know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night`s returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput.
Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off.
If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can`t vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed — I expect the voter will say, “Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you`re telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait — stay up late election night and see what I have done.”
Chris Matthews and his ilk opened the door to the Tea Party. Matthews and the JournoListers devalued experience in order to benefit Barack Obama in 2008. Now the argument cannot be turned around in order to hurt Tea Party activists or their nominees. Obama with all his weaknesses was not vetted and given a free pass by these JournoListers.
The Nutroots and establishment manipulators of the once great Democratic Party thought they would be the vanguard of a revolution. As O’Tingles lamented, “I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn’t know it would come from the right and center.”
It’s too late for those who sold out the country in order to get their precious Barack Obama. Now the working people of Ohio, not the Nutroots and Big Media, will show how hot the fires will burn.
Today Politico is advancing the notion that Hillary Clinton has issued a “warning” to the Tea Party. We’ll report, you decide. Is Hillary Clinton talking about the Tea Party or someone else?
Clinton’s warning for the tea party
Getting elected will bring candidates propelled by the tea party “down to earth,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview on Thursday.
“Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things, and then when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it,” Clinton said, “I’ve seen them become very sobered, very quickly, about the challenges we face domestically and internationally.”
“You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo, who said, ‘You campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.’ Sometimes the poetry can get kind of hot,” Clinton added, “and a little over the top, but the prose brings you down to earth.”
Clinton spoke in Jerusalem with Christiane Amanpour of ABC’s “This Week,” which will show the interview on Sunday.
Um… who has campaigned “in poetry” with flowery words? Certainly it has not been the Tea Party activists. If anything the charge is that the Tea Party is a bunch of screaming loons. There is someone… who provided “tingles” up the legs of Big Media “personalities” but it has not been Tea Party people.
Has Christine O’Donnell campaigned “in poetry”? Has Sharon Angle campaigned “in poetry”? Has Sarah Palin been a font of poetic language? Certainly that has not been the charge.
There is one person who gave flowery speeches that Hillary Clinton knows all too well. Who is that?
[Update: JanH found a link to the Hillary interview. Unfortunately the code is disabled but you can watch the video HERE. Notice how Hillary answers the question about foreign policy and the Tea Party by adding “domestic” policy into the mix. As to the Hillary is “out of politics” line by Amanpour, lately Hillary reminds everyone that “by law” she is out of politics.
“COMMERCE, CALIF. — Lately Hillary Clinton has taken to quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo on the stump. “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose,” Clinton tells her crowds. It’s another subtle way to target Barack Obama. The Clinton camp feels that the path to the Democratic nomination runs through her ability to paint Obama as a “talker not a doer.”]
* * * * * *
Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct when she says that results are what matter. Saying you will close Guantanamo Bay prison is easy to say. Closing Guantanamo Bay, when zero facts have changed from the time you made the promise to the time you assumed office, is another matter entirely.
Saying you will be a “uniter not a divider” is easy to say. Talk is cheap. Cheap hucksters say things all the time. It’s results that matter.
It’s results that matter not “Hope” or promises to “heal the planet”. Results.
Yesterday we discussed the latest bumbling from the Obama OAF operation at the DNC. Not Your Sweetie has the fun details. Instead of results Obama OAFs at the DNC decided to “brand” a new logo.
As Wbboei pointed out “Logos are one of Obama’s obsessions.” Not results but logos. More propaganda rubbish.
“One of the first was the totally-made-up “Office of the President Elect”, with their cutting-edge logo around it.
Maybe we’ll see a new, equally historic, new logo soon, “The office of the outgoing (lame duck) President”, and below it could say “Historic marker No. 345, BO historically becomes the first black president to lose his bid for a second term”
The “lame duck” logo – that will be “unprecedented” to employ one of Obama’s favorite idiocies. Perhaps we can expect a logo to explain why Republicans have the “hot” candidates and Obama Dimocrats have losers. In an article about why there are no equivalents to Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck on the Left there is this bit about the Obama “brand” which is the only thing that has concerned Barack Obama ever (recall why Obama dumped Jeremiah Wright – it wasn’t “God Damn America” but rather Wright’s personal slams against Obama):
“Certainly President Obama himself has had celebrity similar to Beck and Palin, says branding expert Mark Stevens. But that celebrity has taken a beating. “For a pure branding perspective, it’s the greatest rise and fall of a brand in world history, he says. Obama had risen to a rarified stratosphere of fame and impact, he says, the kind achieved by few – a human brand on the level of a Martin Luther King or Muhammad Ali. But that turned around quickly. “When Obama had his hand on the Lincoln bible at inauguration, he never could have believed if we would have told him Glenn Beck’s brand would be more important than his two years later.”
To have goodwill associated with a “brand” the product has to be a worthy one. The Obama obsession with his brand and the sparkling new DNC/OAF logo is a joke because the product they are trying to brand is a piece of junk. As we wrote yesterday:
To us however it is a call for Obama Dimocrats to continue to OD on death dealing Hopium peddled by an addled flim-flam con artist from Chicago.”
The new DNC/OAF logo is but the latest flim-flam from the Obama operation. A few days ago Jon Stewart’s interview of DNC Chair Tim Kaine provoked guffaws:
With the midterm elections looming and the Democrats looking to take more losses than many predicted just a few months ago, DNC chairman Tim Kaine bravely joined Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night. Stewart has been a consistently vocal critic of the Democratic Party’s political efforts and was not reluctant in sharing his criticism to the former Governor of Virginia and current party chair. The segment opens with Stewart plainly stating “you’re in trouble dude,” and gets more entertaining from there.
You’re in trouble dude because your obsession with logos and brands and poetry only fascinate Haiku writers like “creative class” Hopium drug mules like Chris Bowers. As to Kaine’s assertions that so much has been done by this Corrupt Congress of Doom, Julian Zeilzer has a warning:
“The list of legislation that has passed the 111th Congress is impressive: an economic stimulus bill, health care reform and financial regulation, among others. Some commentators have compared this Congress with the 73rd and 74th (the early New Deal) and the 88th and 89th (the Great Society).
It is too early to tell whether this Congress will have the same kind of impact as those earlier ones. We don’t yet know what will happen to the measures that have passed when they are implemented, whether they will have the same kind of long-term success in achieving their objectives as measures such as the Wagner Act (1935) and the Civil Rights Act (1964). Nor do we know whether the bills will last over time. It is important to remember that there are many landmark bills, such as the loophole-closing Tax Reform of 1986, that unravel after passage.”
“But we can discern three important differences between the current Congress and those of the past that can help us understand the challenges facing everyone who operates in the current fraught political environment.
The first difference is that the 111th Congress passed major controversial bills that impose many costs but don’t provide a clear set of universal benefits.
One of the defining aspects of the New Deal and Great Society periods was that Congress passed legislation that provided sizable benefits to large portions of the population. Between 1933 and 1936, millions of Americans went to work and received paychecks as a result of the public works programs that Congress put into place. Industrial workers could finally join unions and act as a collective bargaining force as a result of the Wagner Act. The law gave workers a new sense of economic security and a path into the middle class. The Old Age Assistance and Old Age Insurance programs, both part of the Social Security Act of 1935, alleviated the problem of poverty among the elderly.
Similarly, the 88th and 89th Congresses delivered. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 transformed the lives of African-Americans by ending public segregation and protecting their right to vote. Medicare provided hospitalization insurance and physician coverage to all elderly Americans who had participated in the work force. The Immigration Act of 1965 ended the national origins quota that had been a source of anger for two generations of Americans — most of them middle-class voters — whose families had entered the U.S. between the 1880s and 1920s. In both periods, Congress offered powerful incentives for beneficiaries to remain loyal to the Democratic Party. Even after the conservative revolution of the 1970s, conservatives would discover the difficulty of retrenching these popular programs or winning over Democratic beneficiaries.
The new Congress has not passed as much legislation that offers these kinds of universal benefits. The economic stimulus bill came closest, but Democrats, with the White House resisting, did not devote as much to public works programs as in the 1930s or to assistance for state and local governments. While the health care reform legislation will provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans, the bill will also leave a majority of middle-class Americans holding the same health care plans as before and will require millions of others to purchase coverage. Future cost savings are unclear because many provisions were stripped from the bill in response to the health care lobby. The financial regulation attempts to curb certain kinds of speculative behavior on Wall Street, but the bill does not deliver tangible benefits to most Americans.”
“Congress has passed these programs, moreover, with few bipartisan votes. This leads to a second difference. The 111th Congress is much more polarized than those of the New Deal and Great Society periods.
While partisan tensions remained high throughout the 20th century and the leaders of the parties were always willing to fight over key issues, bipartisan coalitions formed on a large number of bills from 1933 to 1936 and from 1965 to 1967.
Within most congressional committees during those earlier periods, bipartisan alliances were strong (to the frustration of many liberals). Southern committee chairmen worked closely with ranking Republicans to pass bills that some members of both parties could support. Within the House Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.) worked closely with Rep. John Byrnes (R-Wis.) to design the fiscal and administrative structure of programs such as Medicare. When Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) helped him end the Southern filibuster and brought 27 GOP votes. [snip]
The third difference is the frenzied media environment in which legislators now govern.
The earlier Congresses took place at the height of the newspaper-based, objective era of professional journalism. Reporters tried to keep their viewpoints out of stories, and politicians had time to consider their response to them. When Johnson was president, there were still only three television networks, each of which devoted only a half-hour to the news.
Today, the media have gone wild.”
Obama supporters who deplore Republicans somehow can’t explain the broken “uniter not a divider” promise. Hillary Clinton warned that the special interests would not go away. She was mocked by Obama goons who heard celestial choirs. Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans would stick by their political viewpoints and guns. Hillary was denounced, by Barack Obama himself, as the problem whose “scars” were due to her own intransigence and unwillingness to work with Republicans.
Likewise, the many Obama supporters who called for Obama’s election because he was a “media darling” now bemoan the news reports of Obama’s bumbling. The JournoListers made Obama the “media darling” and now we all pay the price. The Big Media Party elected their unqualified stooge and foisted him on the American public and now the public is fighting back.
Barack Obama and his thugs want to “brand” a piece of junk. The Nobel Peace Prize used to have a great brand – the gold standard of achievement. But now the Obama “brand” has reduced the Nobel Peace Prize into a solid gold piece of junk. It was an undeserved award to a man of zero accomplishments.
The DNC/OAF can wave their new logo or Nobel Peace Prize medal like a glass marble in the hands of a hypnotist all they want. But logos and prize medals won’t change the fact that the underlying product is a piece of junk.
This November Americans will throw out the garbage.
Ignore Christine O’Donnell. She is either a wonderful heroic woman or a tawdry nutjob. She is either a sure loser (like Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Sharon Angle, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell), and a Tea Party/Palin mistake or a possible winner. None of that really matters.
What matters is the people. It is very possible, as many historians assert, that Marie Antoinette is a misunderstood historical figure. But the “real” Marie Antoinette does not matter. What matters was the tumult in the streets of Paris, not what was happening in the castle.
After last night if we are to lament, if we are to question, our lamentation and question should be “where are the Dimocratic carcasses hanging from the lampposts of revolutionary America?” In revolutionary France during the 1700s priests hung from streetlamps like Christmas decorations on a Macy’s tree. Where are our decorations? It’s only Republicans with the joy of such ghoulish decorations these days.
“Carl P. Paladino, a Buffalo multimillionaire who jolted the Republican Party with his bluster and belligerence, rode a wave of disgust with Albany to the nomination for governor of New York on Tuesday, toppling Rick A. Lazio, a former congressman who earned establishment support but inspired little popular enthusiasm. [snip]
“We are mad as hell,” Mr. Paladino said in a halting but exuberant victory speech in Buffalo shortly after 11 p.m. “New Yorkers are fed up. Tonight the ruling class knows. They have seen it now. There is a people’s revolution. The people have had enough.”
Referring to criticism from what he said were liberal elites, he added: “They say I am too blunt. Well, I am, and I don’t apologize for it. They say I am an angry man, and that’s true. We are all angry.”’
Paladino overwhelmingly crushed the Hillary hater Rick Lazio. Lazio was a sure loser to the $24 million dollar bankrolled Andrew Cuomo in New York, the last bastion of Obama Dimocrats (deep blue Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy and deep blue California leads a Republican resurgence).
“Mr. Paladino’s platform calls for cutting taxes by 10 percent in six months, eliminating cherished public pensions for legislators, and using eminent domain to prevent the construction of a mosque and community center near ground zero. Those proposals could make Mr. Cuomo’s farthest-reaching reform ideas seem meek by comparison.”
The Republican Party establishment is in retreat as the Tea Party “peasants with pitchforks” take to the streets and the ballot box. After last night’s peevish assaults on the results in Delaware, today the national party heads faced with a dripping red Guillotine, backtracked. After at least eight races in which their nominee was defeated the Republican establishment had better wake up and smell the brewing Tea.
“Voters grabbed their pitchforks Tuesday night and came over the ramparts. The revolution has arrived. Republican primary voters Tuesday night in key contests in Delaware and New Hampshire and New York sent a clear message, in case anyone had missed it up until now: If you are part of the establishment, you better grab your goodies and get out of the castle while you can. [snip]
The attacks on O’Donnell were personal; she was “nuts.” The attacks on Castle were on his record; he was too liberal for some. The bitter GOP battle in Delaware for the Senate seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden was a doozy. But it was a proxy war between the Tea Party and establishment GOP writ large in this small state. [snip]
The sound and the fury in Delaware are not signs of a party in disarray — they are signs of an engaged electorate who want to make a statement. GOP voter turnout was much higher than expected. While a RINO head mounted on the wall may be a trophy, a RINO seated in a chair in the Senate could have helped make a Republican majority. But voters were unwilling to settle.
By electing O’Donnell, voters in Delaware proved the Tea Party is now more than a movement — it’s become the driving force and voice of Republican voters.
Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen know it is a revolution. And as we have stated before it is a legitimate movement worthy of respect whether you agree with the aims or not. The mocking of the Tea Party movement by Obama Dimocrats has been foolish and alienates these activists even more. That the so-called “creative class progressives” cannot muster a movement with this much energy and accomplishment is what riles them into a frenzy of mockery and hate against the Tea Party. Rasmussen and Schoen explain the significance of the Tea Party movement:
“The Tea Party movement has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in recent American political history.
It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is potentially strong enough to elect senators, governors and congressmen. It may even be strong enough to elect the next president of the United States — time will tell.
But the Tea Party movement has been one of the most derided and minimized and, frankly, most disrespected movements in American history. Yet, despite being systematically ignored, belittled, marginalized, and ostracized by political, academic, and media elites, the Tea Party movement has grown stronger and stronger.
The extraordinary turnout on April 15, 2010, at rallies across the country speaks volumes to the strength, power, and influence of the Tea Party movement, with more than 750 protests held across the country, demonstrating a level of activism and enthusiasm that is both unprecedented and arguably unique in recent American political history.”
Not able to understand a genuine grass roots movement when it bites them, Obama Dimocrats mocked and sniffed in derision. The mockery was especially loud from the Democratic establishment that gifted Barack Obama the nomination of the once great Democratic Party:
“In an April 15, 2009, interview, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “This initiative is funded by the high end — we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grass-roots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”
“[They are] evil-mongers” spreading “lies, innuendo, and rumor,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
When the elite looked, their first reaction was to say: “Well if it was real (which we really don’t believe it was), it is a one-time occurrence, it is no big deal, and it is worth neither our time nor attention.”
This was evidenced in the findings of an April 2010 study conducted by the Media Research Center, which found that ABC, CBS and NBC aired 61 stories or segments on the anti-spending movement over a 12-month period, and most of that coverage is recent.
“The networks virtually refused to recognize the tea party in 2009 (19 stories), with the level of coverage increasing only after Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts” in January, the report said, referring to the Republican’s win of the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.
The first reaction from political and media elites was that these were insignificant gatherings, just small numbers of people inflated by the media.
“It’s incredibly stupid,” said former Atlantic Monthly writer Matthew Yglesias on the early Tea Party movement.
“It can be expected from the margins, but it’s troubling to see it [The Tea Party movement] embraced and validated by more mainstream entities,” said writer Stuart Whatley in a post on the Huffington Post, April 14, 2009.
Next, they said that these protests were by no means spontaneous, that the Tea Party movement was not a legitimate grass-roots movement. Rather, it was being fed and fueled by conservative talk radio and cable television.”
Obama Dimocrats are rightly upset with the Tea Party movement because it is indeed a movement. David Kuhn today makes the point we have repeatedly made in our “Mistake In ‘O8” series that Barack Obama was a product of a singular economic event, not the product of a mass movement:
“The crash of our time came two years ago today. We know the economic story well. Lehman Brothers fell. The markets went with it.
But the political story of September 15 is barely known. That it made Barack Obama’s majority. That, two years later, it explains why the Democratic majority is on life support.
Recall the Obama hyperbole of November 2008. Talk of an enduring progressive majority. New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman typified a corps of liberal analysts at the time. “We’ve had a major political realignment,” Krugman wrote. “[The] presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.” Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economics that same year. Yet even he disregarded how the economy made Obama’s mandate that day.
By March 2009, liberal analyst Ruy Teixeira wrote a report on the “New Progressive America.” It dissected the presidential electorate. How white, brown, black and educated voted. Everyone but bicycling Norwegians. Yet, as I noted then, the nearly 50-page report ignored the economy’s role. The lapse was, again, typical of the time and type.”
Obama Dimocrats want us to forget 2008. They fear the repercussions and consequences if our analysis is the correct one. And if we are right in our analysis, then indeed 2008 when Democrats ignored primary voters in order to gift Obama the nomination, was a tragic monumental Mistake of multi-generational proportions. In short, it was the the economic events of late 2008 that saved Obama, not a mass movement.
“We are now in another political time. The Democratic House could collapse in less than 50 days. Obama lost the majority long ago. And liberal analysts are running to economic explanations. Krugman has led the chorus. “It really is the economy, stupid,” he wrote this summer.
It’s an analysis that seeks to have it both ways. The economy is blamed in bad Democratic times. It’s ignored in good. This cognitive dissonance deceived Democrats most. It brought hubris when they were on top. It now brings denial. If Obama first won his mandate on progressivism and now lost it with the economy, then the “professional left” does not have to consider where its ideas went wrong.
Democrats 2008 victory was credited to a great politician, a great campaign and a greatly changing nation. Yet it was the economy that made Obama’s majority. Not necessarily his victory. But it’s in majorities that presidents claim mandates.[snip]
‘Many forget, after all, where McCain stood before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. Gallup measured McCain ahead for 9 straight days until September 15. After that day, McCain never again led Obama. Obama had only won a majority once before September 15th. And that was at the peak of his convention bounce. After the stock market first crashed, Obama surpassed or met that 50-percent threshold 33 times.'[snip]
‘By the Gallup Poll’s tracking, Democrats were winning about 55 percent of the Hispanic vote before the first stock market crash. McCain was winning the college graduate vote. By September’s close, Democrats were winning roughly 65 percent of the Hispanic vote and college graduates.
Obama won nine states Bush took in 2004. But in six of those states, including Florida and Ohio, John McCain was ahead or tied prior to the first stock market crash on September 15. Nearly to the day of the dive, Obama rose in all nine states to soon sustain a national majority for the first time.”
It was not a mass movement but an economic crisis and a Big Media manufactured mass delusion that elected Barack Obama. It was an illusion:
“Perhaps Democratic leaders bought into the thesis of Teixeira and Krugman et al. Perhaps they ignored the fragility of Obama’s mandate. Disregarded Americans’ long tension with government. Believed Obama changed the electorate. September 15 reminds us that this was an illusion. And the whirlwind of this illusion is coming in November.“
The Revolution started by the grassroots (which includes Independents and even some Democrats) to take back the Republican Party is on the march. Democrats who want the Party of FDR resurrected and who deplore the Cult of Personality of the OD Party better sharpen the pitchforks. “We have got to get it together.” The Revolution is here.